The graph shows numbers unemployed. Not unemployment rates.

I stand corrected!

Purely semantics though…still doesn't detract from my point.
(that it is disingenuous to claim that the graph shows that strike action has no effect on unemployment – because it doesn't).

that it is disingenuous to claim that the graph shows that strike action has no effect on unemployment

That is presumably because you think it 'lags behind' as you put it, and Longbridge went into liquidation in 2005 because of strikes which had occurred a quarter of a century earlier.

It also means that the government and management didn't have a clue when they told the workforce that they had a bright future if they didn't take any further strike action ……… or did they know all along and where simply lying ?

Like those who continue believe that God created the world in 6 days despite the lack of evidence, some people will carry on believing that everything is the fault of the unions, despite the complete lack of evidence, as it fits very neatly into their belief system. Placing the blame on governments or management or dare I say it, the system, would require a drastic overhaul of their entire belief system, a thought too horrendous to contemplate. Best to stick to simplistic solutions and blame everything on the unions then.

Arguing with creationists or the "Maggie was right" brigade, is a pointless and futile exercise, as they will always find excuses for the complete inconsistencies of their arguments. It can be fun though.

I'll be working too. We have adopted many new working practices over the last couple of years. They all work providing there is a bit of give and take from both sides. My bike had nice shiney new bits thanks to the bonus we got for adopting the new practices. Delivery postmen seem to taking the flak for this as we are the face the public see, but it's those bone idle tw*ts you don't see in the mail centres that are causing most of this trouble.
As far as my customers are concerned I have their full backing for turning up for work on friday.
Out office has about 5% union membership. Small delivery units like ours have no clout and the union don't give a toss about us.

That is presumably because you think it 'lags behind' as you put it

This is not particularly my view, just that I can claim it (based upon your 'evidence') with the same authority that you claim what you are saying.

some people will carry on believing that everything is the fault of the unions, despite the complete lack of evidence, as it fits very neatly into their belief system

Particularly ironic considering that is exactly what you are doing. You have not provided any evidence to support your view. Reading into the graph what you want. I am mearly making the point about the 'quality of evidence'

Re the actual strikes IMO (:D). I can see why they have gone out on strike but I belive that the unions don't have the power and support that they once enjoyed. Personally I feel that they will only suceed in 'cutting their noses off to spite their face' (if due to this action the company fails- no one will have jobs).

Particularly ironic considering that is exactly what you are doing.

How am I doing that ? I have neither said that everything is the fault of the unions nor, that they are blameless.

You have not provided any evidence to support your view.

Well I have. I have provided a graph which shows that there is no correlation between the level of industrial action and the unemployment rate. It is no less valid than the simplistic argument which claims that industrial action is the cause of job losses.

Of course I fully appreciate that me posting the graph is like posting a picture of a dinosaur to a creationist, ie, a completely futile exercise.

I am by nature a bit of a lefty, but to be honest I have no idea at all why the Posties are going down this route.

My experience of the Post Office, anecdotal though it may well be is three fold, that being via a relative who was a Post Office inspector (dead now, and for all I know the job he did may no longer exist). He was a lazy twunt, who basically did little and obstructed much. I also did a part time degree with a ROMEC senior manager. He was lazy and obstructive, and living in the past. That apart its been from the outside looking in. It very much appears to me that the organisation is a throwback to a bygone era and is working very hard at destroying itself.

As a businessman I stopped using Royal Mail for anything other than minor correspondance 8 or 9 years ago. It was too difficult, unreliable, out of touch and out of date. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are arguments on both sides of the fence, and that Grey outweighs black or white. However, the simple fact is that I am now in the process of printing on everything that we send out large notices reminding my customers that they need to research other ways to communicate and send their payments to us. Every time this crap happens there is more of that, and less business for the Post Office. It does not come back after.

I listened to someone this morning describing how automatic sorting had increased the demands of their "walk" to unreasonable levels. Having been in a similar mamangement situation in the past, there is only one answer to that point. If it is truely unreasonable, large volumes of mail will be returned to the depot undelivered on a repeated basis. That fact alone will ensure that the "unreasonableness" does not continue.

In the meantime the rest of us in normal occupations with normal employers will get on with the stresses and tensions of our working days without resorting to deliberately irritating and losing our customer base. If we find it all too much we will resort to the standard process to resolve it of looking for another job. That usually answers our questions rapidly and succinctly. New Job and thats me in the right then. No New Job, well perhaps it wasn't that bad after all.

C,mon guys get with the programme. This sort of stuff died out with Thatcher, and all you are doing is proving her right, which is frankly almost intolerable and immediately will stop me and many other socialists supporting you at this difficult time politically.

I have provided a graph which shows that there is no correlation between the level of industrial action and the unemployment rate.

But it doesn't show this,(where does it show the level of industrial action)? therefore your graph irrelevant to your argument.

It is no less valid than the simplistic argument which claims that industrial action is the cause of job losses.

I agree but the graph does not back up your claim.

Whats all this about creationists? What are you trying to infer? 😉

So companies should be able to use the current financial climate to threaten staff into accepting whatever pay and conditions they like? Marvellous.

If it means the business stays afloat and the pay is at or above legal minimum, yes, it's your choice if you work or not – surely you should be grateful that you're keeping employment, not moaning it's not good enough when hundreds of thousands are being made redundant. Not ideal, but if you want a job to go to. If the RM were making countless millions in profit at the same time as squeezing the wages then sure, argue the point if you've taken into account their needing to re-invest some of the profit for long term protection etc. But at the end of the day, they pay you to work what they think you're worth. If you dont like it, what is the most sensible option – keep working at lower rates, getting paid but able to kick up a stink from the inside and in the media, or striking and essentially cutting off your income stream to make the point, while turning a large percentage of the country against you. It just doesn't make sense, especially not in the days of high unemployment and cheap european labour being available.

You are misinterpreting your own graph which clearly shows an increase in unemployed people or the % unemployment rate from 1970 to 1984 which by your own argument is a time of high industrial dispute.

Is there a law like Godwins law only with religiuous extremists instead of nazi's?

where does it show the level of industrial action

I doesn't.

I assumed everyone agreed that the 1970's was a period which was "riddled with strikes".

.

Whats all this about creationists? What are you trying to infer? 😉

……….. that it's like trying to argue with a **** creationist !!!

😉

By the way it's job losses that cause industrial action not the other way round.

Credit me with a bit of intelligence! 😆

I like evidence based assertions rather than dogmatic belief. 😉

You are misinterpreting your own graph which clearly shows an increase in unemployed people or the % unemployment rate from 1970 to 1984 which by your own argument is a time of high industrial dispute.

No I'm not.

1984 was not "a time of high industrial dispute". The 1970s was.

'My graph' shows that in the last 30 years the period with lowest unemployment, was the 1970s.

And here's a nice picture for you …

'My graph' shows that in the last 30 years the period with lowest unemployment, was the 1970s.

Ah, so that was what you were trying to prove? Well done – I think you've managed it.

Don't really see what it has to do with strikes though.

Don't really see what it has to do with strikes though.

There was a lot of strikes going on in the 1970s.

*he mutters through clenched teeth*

So you invented a correlation between the strikes and low unemployment! 😉